[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-7344?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andrew Wang resolved HDFS-7344.
---
Resolution: Done
Resolving since the required subtasks for this umbrella seem to be complete.
> [umbre
Yiqun Lin created HDFS-11350:
Summary: Document the missing settings relevant to DataNode disk
IO statistics
Key: HDFS-11350
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-11350
Project: Hadoop HDFS
Zhaofei Meng created HDFS-11351:
---
Summary: HDFS throws "java.lang.IllegalStateException"
Key: HDFS-11351
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-11351
Project: Hadoop HDFS
Issue Type:
Erik Krogen created HDFS-11352:
--
Summary: Potential deadlock in NN when failing over
Key: HDFS-11352
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-11352
Project: Hadoop HDFS
Issue Type: Bug
The ASF release policy says releases may not be vetoed [1] so the EOL policy
sounds unenforceable. Not sure a release cadence is enforceable either since
Release Managers are volunteers.
1. https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
On 1/18/17, 7:06 PM, "Junping Du" wrote:
I don't think the motivation here is vendor play or taking away power from
committers. Having a regular release cadence helps our users understand
when a feature will ship so they can plan their upgrades. Having an EOL
policy and a minimum support period helps users choose a release line, and
under
Heads up that I'm branching for 3.0.0-alpha2 and moving out targets
versions. We're waiting on one last blocker which is in final stages of
review.
Best,
Andrew
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks to the hard work of many contributors, we've been steadily
I've branched branch-3.0.0-alpha2 and moved out the target versions except
for our last blocker to a new 3.0.0-alpha3 version.
Business can continue as usual, please just set target/fix versions of
3.0.0-alpha3 now instead of 3.0.0-alpha2.
Thanks,
Andrew
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Andrew W
According to Varun's offline email, the security fixes has landed on branch-2,
2.8 and 2.8.0 branch.
I was kicking off a new RC build (RC1), and will publish it for vote soon. In
the mean time, please mark fix version as 2.8.1 for any new commits landed on
branch-2.8, and don't commit anything
Sorry, I'd missed the end of the EOL discussion thread.
As several people have pointed out, this is unenforceable. The release
dates on the front page are a decent signal for liveness... do we need
something more formal? All these hypothetical situations would be
decided with more context. The "go
It looks like hadoop-cloud-storage-project was missed in the version set?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Wang
wrote:
> I've branched branch-3.0.0-alpha2 and moved out the target versions except
> for our last blocker to a new 3.0.0-alpha3 version.
>
> Business can continue as usual, ple
Thanks Sangjin for finding this.
> It looks like hadoop-cloud-storage-project was missed in the version set?
Yes. Probably this is because
hadoop-cloud-storage-project
is missing in pom.xml so `mvn versions:set` did not work for the
project. Filed HADOOP-14004 for fixing this.
Regards,
Ak
12 matches
Mail list logo
